Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

COVID-19

Elon Musk-backed doctor critical of COVID response vows appeal after court sides with medical board

Published

8 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

One of Gill’s “controversial” posts read, “If you have not yet figured out that we don’t need a vaccine, you are not paying attention. ”  

A Canadian physician who challenged her medical regulator after it placed “cautions” against her for speaking out against draconian COVID mandates on social media has lost a court battle, but with the help of her Elon Musk-backed legal team she has vowed to appeal the ruling. 

The case concerns Dr. Kulvinder Kaur Gill, an Ontario pediatrician who has been embroiled in a legal battle with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) for her anti-COVID views posted on X (formerly Twitter) in 2020. As reported by LifeSiteNews, her case received the support of billionaire Tesla and X owner Elon Musk, who pledged in March to back her financially.  

One of Gill’s “controversial” posts read, “If you have not yet figured out that we don’t need a vaccine, you are not paying attention. #FactsNotFear.”  

The Divisional Court decision against Gill dated May 7, 2024, concluded, “When the College chose to draw the line at those tweets which it found contained misinformation, it did so in a way which reasonably balanced Dr. Gill’s free speech rights with her professional responsibilities.” 

“In other words, its response was proportionate,” noted the ruling. 

Gill’s lawyer, Lisa Bildy with Libertas Law, stated in a press release sent to LifeSiteNews that the “Court declined to quash the ‘cautions’ orders, finding that the ‘screening committee’ of the CPSO was sufficiently alert to the Charter infringement of Dr. Gill’s speech, such that its decisions were within the range of reasonable outcomes.” 

“Dr. Gill had argued, in two factums,” noted Bildy, which can be found here and here , and filed in the companion court applications, that “her statements were not ‘verifiably false.’” 

Bildy expressed that Gill had provided the College with “ample evidence in 2020 to support her position against lockdowns,” but was sanctioned “because they went against the College’s guidance that doctors should not express opinions contradicting government or its public health edicts.” 

Gill’s court challenge against the CPSO began last month, with Bildy writing at the time that the College’s “decisions were neither reasonable nor justified and they failed to engage with the central issues for which Dr. Gill was being cautioned.” 

“The decision starts with the premise that doctors have to comply,” said Bildy, warning that censoring doctors would have a “chilling effect” on free speech.    

Bildy noted that in its ruling, the court “disagreed” with Gill’s challenge, “stating that this invited a reweighing of the evidence.” 

The court also ordered that Gill pay the CPSO $6,000 in legal costs.  

Gill is a specialist practicing in the Greater Toronto area, and has extensive experience and training in “pediatrics, and allergy and clinical immunology, including scientific research in microbiology, virology and vaccinology.” 

Last September, disciplinary proceedings against her were withdrawn by the CPSO. However, last year, Gill was ordered to pay $1 million in legal costs after her libel suit was struck down. 

The CPSO began disciplinary investigations against Gill in August 2020.  

Gill to appeal recent court ruling with support from Musk’s X  

The court’s ruling asserted that the CPSO panel members consisted of “three physicians with highly relevant expertise that they were able to bring to bear when assessing the scientific and medical information before them, expertise that this court does not have.” 

Bildy noted that in fact, the CPSO panel consisted of “three surgeons and a general member of the public who had deferred to the ‘expertise’ of government’s public health arm.” 

The court ruling also dismissed Gill’s arguments that publishing the “cautions on her public register and disseminating a notice about the cautions to hospitals and regulators across the continent was punitive and had a chilling effect on one side of a debate.” 

“The Court opted to align with other Divisional Court decisions in stating that the cautions were not a finding of professional misconduct but were merely a remedial measure. This is despite the fact that cautions have, only in recent years, become a public rebuke rather than a private ‘correction’ of a professional by their peers. This significant change has not yet been grappled with by the Ontario Court of Appeal,” noted Bildy.  

Bildy said that Gill intends to “seek leave to appeal to the Ontario Court of Appeal with the support of X Corp., since her posts were made on the X platform which supports free expression and dialogue, even on contentious issues and particularly on matters of scientific and medical importance.”  

Gill noted on X Tuesday that her “notice of motion for leave to appeal will be filed” next week “to begin process.” 

She also thanked Musk and X for supporting her legal cause.  

Gill had said that she had “suddenly” found herself going “against the narrative,” and was then “seen as a black sheep and as someone who should be shunned.” 

Many Canadian doctors who spoke out against COVID mandates and the experimental mRNA injections have been censured by their medical boards. 

Earlier this month, Elon Musk’s X announced that it will fund the legal battle for another Canadian doctor critical of COVID lockdowns, Dr. Matthew Strauss, an Ontario critical care physician and professor, against his former employer Queen’s University after it forced him to resign. 

In an interview with LifeSiteNews at its annual general meeting in July 2023 near Toronto, canceled doctors Mary O’Connor, Mark Trozzi, Chris Shoemaker, and Byram Bridle were asked to state their messages to the medical community regarding how they have had to fight censure because they have opinions contrary to the COVID mainstream narrative. 

COVID-19

Rand Paul vows to target COVID-19 cover-up, Fauci as Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman

Published on

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) speaks to reporters

From LifeSiteNews

By Doug Mainwaring

“I think we’re on the cusp of, really, the beginning of uncovering what happened with COVID”

Rand Paul is set to become chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee beginning in January, putting him in a position to more doggedly investigate the government’s role in covering up the truth about the COVID-19 pandemic.

“I chose to chair this committee over another because I believe that, for the health of our republic, Congress must stand up once again for its constitutional role,” Paul told the New York Post. “This committee’s mission of oversight and investigations is critical to Congress reasserting itself.”

“I think we’re on the cusp of, really, the beginning of uncovering what happened with COVID,” the Kentucky senator said. “The biggest item of the COVID cover-up is that for years, we’ve known there is this dangerous research.”

“We are going to, hopefully, have a friendlier administration, and we’re hoping that there will be a friendly person at (the Department of Health and Human Services), and we’re hoping they’ll be friendly at (the National Institutes of Health),” he added.

With President-elect Donald Trump’s appointment yesterday of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to be Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Paul has likely gotten his wish.

The Bluegrass State senator has long suspected that the accepted official narrative asserting that the COVID-19 virus did not originate in a Wuhan, China lab was intended to obscure the U.S. government’s role in developing the virus and conducting dangerous “gain of function” experiments with the deadly virus.

Paul recently told Fox News that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and HHS “have refused to turn over the documents as to why Wuhan got this research money and why it wasn’t screened as dangerous research. I’m looking forward to getting those (documents), mainly because we need to try to make sure this doesn’t happen again.”

“The cover-up went beyond public statements. Federal agencies and key officials withheld and continue to conceal crucial information from both Congress and the public,” Paul said in his opening remarks at a Senate hearing in June dedicated to COVID’s origins. “This has been a deliberate, prolonged effort to deceive the committee about certain gain-of-function research experiments that the agencies have been withholding. What we have found as we’ve gone through this is at every step there’s been resistance.”

“So the hearing today is to try and find out whether or not we can get to the truth,” Paul said at the time. “Do we know for certain it came from the lab? No, but there’s a preponderance of evidence indicating that it may have come from the lab. Do we know viruses have come from animals in the past? Yes, they’ve come from animals in the past. But this time, there’s no animal reservoir. There’s no animal handlers with antibiotics. There’s a lot of reasons why there are indications that this could have come from the lab.”

And it seems that Sen. Paul has infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci, the man who quickly emerged as a central figure at the very start of the pandemic, in his sights as well.

Paul and Fauci have long had a combative relationship as exemplified in several committee hearings over the last few years.

Paul has said multiple times that Dr. Fauci should “go to prison” for lying to Congress.

A year ago, Paul told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that “We now have proof in Anthony Fauci’s own words, we have his emails.”

“In public he’s saying, ‘Oh, if you say it came from the lab, you’re a conspiracy theorist, you’re crazy, it’s a fringe theory,’” Paul said. “But in private, he’s saying, ‘We’re very concerned because the virus appears to be manipulated. And we’re also very concerned because we know they’re doing gain of function research in Wuhan.’”

A post on X by an RFK Jr. parody this morning said, “Dear Dr. Fauci, I’m still looking for you.”

Sen. Paul reposted it, saying, “I bet we find him.”

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Peer-reviewed study finds over 1,000% rise in cardiac deaths after COVID-19 shots

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

A new study published in the Journal of Emergency Medicine by a team of McCullough Foundation doctors reports significant links ‘between excess fatal cardiopulmonary arrests and the COVID-19 vaccination campaign.’

A new peer-reviewed study reports that it has found a more than 1,000 percent increase in heart-related deaths among a large pool of people who have taken the COVID-19 shots.

On October 24, the Journal of Emergency Medicine published a study by a team of McCullough Foundation doctors who reviewed the annual reports of cardiopulmonary arrests, survival rates, and emergency medical services (EMS) incidents from King County, Washington, from 2016 to 2023. The county presented a “unique opportunity” for analysis because nearly the entire population (an estimated 98%) had received at least one COVID shot dose.

“As of August 2nd, 2024, there have been approximately 589,247 confirmed COVID-19 cases in King County,” the study found.

“In 2021-2022, Total EMS attendances in King County sharply increased by 35.34% from 2020 and by 11% from pre-pandemic years. Cases of ‘obvious death’ upon EMS arrival increased by 19.89% in 2020, 36.57% in 2021, and 53.80% in 2022 compared to the 2017-2019 average. We found a 25.7% increase in total cardiopulmonary arrests and a 25.4% increase in cardiopulmonary arrest mortality from 2020 to 2023 in King County, WA.”

“Excess fatal cardiopulmonary arrests were estimated to have increased by 1,236% from 2020 to 2023, rising from 11 excess deaths (95% CI: -12, 34) in 2020 to 147 excess deaths (95% CI: 123, 170) in 2023,” the study continued. “A quadratic increase in excess cardiopulmonary arrest mortality was observed with higher COVID-19 vaccination rates. The general population of King County sharply declined by 0.94% (21,300) in 2021, deviating from the expected population size. Applying our model from these data to the entire United States yielded 49,240 excess fatal cardiopulmonary arrests from 2021-2023.”

The authors concluded that there was a “significant ecological and temporal association between excess fatal cardiopulmonary arrests and the COVID-19 vaccination campaign,” but allowed that “COVID-19 infection and disruptions in emergency care during the pandemic” could be an alternative explanation.

To more fully understand the problem, they called for “continuous monitoring and analysis of cardiopulmonary arrest data to inform public health interventions and policies, especially in the context of vaccination programs,” as well as for the “U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 vaccination administration data [to] be merged with all death cases so that the vaccine type, dose(s), and date of administration can be analyzed as possible determinants.”

The study adds to a large body of evidence linking significant risks to the COVID shots, which were developed and reviewed in a fraction of the time vaccines usually take under the first Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed initiative.

The federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) reports 38,068 deaths, 218,646 hospitalizations, 22,002 heart attacks, and 28,706 myocarditis and pericarditis cases as of October 25, among other ailments. U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) researchers have recognized a “high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination,” leading to the conclusion that “under-reporting is more likely” than over-reporting.

All eyes are currently on former President Donald Trump, who last week won his campaign to return to the White House and whose team, which will be helmed by prominent vaccine critic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as his nominee for secretary of Health and Human Services, has given mixed signals as to the prospects of reconsidering the shots for which he has long taken credit. At the very least, Trump has consistently opposed jab mandates and is expected to fill more federal judicial vacancies with jurists similarly inclined.

Continue Reading

Trending

X